• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

Deuce said:
You are disrespecting the constitution right now because you are criticizing my speech.
Click to expand...

The difference between me & you, Deuce, is I pointed out your hypocrisy. As I said (and you apparently missed), you are free to insult them all you want. But be prepared to have it called out that you are insuting their protected Constitutional rights.

I don't expect you to understand the distinction.
 
vesper said:
When it comes to gay marriage, I believe it is the right of the people to decide by a vote whether they want it in their neck of the woods or not and that decision either way needs to be respected. I have a real problem with political appointed judges overturning the will of the majority of the people especially when they do not base their entire argument on constitutional law. Most recently the case in Oregon. The judge was gay himself and made his ruling based in part on his personal feelings. When the baker in Colorado was found violating accommodation laws the ruling of that judge was based on emotion in part for making the gay couple "feel bad" for not baking them a cake. This is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

more proof you dont care about the constitution or rights, thank you for doing so.
 
Deuce said:
See, you still really don't get it. You don't have the right to express an opinion "without being insulted." You have the right to express that opinion without the government punishing you for doing so.

As for vesper's rights, when he starts supporting my right to skip recurrent training as a commercial pilot due to my religious objections, I might consider his right to not bake a cake.
Click to expand...

I must have missed the part where Vesper was responsible for your training as a commercial pilot. Since it has nothing to do with my posts, I"ll not waste my time commenting on it further.

Keep insulting him and the others. I assume it's a victory of some sort for you? Whatever makes you feel good, Deuce. I'll keep pointing out their Constitutional right - the one that's spelled out in black & white for all of us to read - and your determination to discount & attack that Constitutional right they have.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Who's being denied? No one is forcing people to perform religious ceremonies. In fact businesses are required to allow people to practice religious prayers when working. And two gay men getting married does not infringe on your religious freedoms at all. Not even a tiny fraction of a fraction.

As for denying gay couples business, I would have no problem getting rid of that law. I believe that business owners have a right to discriminate who they sell their property to. There's a whole thread that was made about that very subject of which I was a participant in to show that I'm speaking the truth on that. Let's get that law changed.
Click to expand...

But people are losing their jobs if they refuse to participate in things that violate their moral conscience especially small business owners that the state has made law. By you stating that we should get rid of the law proves you realize this to be a fact.
 
tres borrachos said:
So you will say the same thing to any of the posters in this thread scoffing on the rights of people like Vesper when those people scream about a ruling that SCOTUS hands down? Or when a judge lets a kiddie rapist go, you'll say "shut up" to them?

I don't like a lot of rulings that have been handed down, from SCOTUS to the circuit courts to local courts. Should I shut up about them, or am I free to have an express an opposing opinion without being insulted.
Click to expand...

If 30+ judges all say the same when they have nothing more in common than their ruling and that they are judges...yes I will shut up about it. And I never said that I would tell them to shut up about it. But I will point out the futility of their idiocy by pointing out that 30 + judges with nothing in common other than their rulings and that they are judges disagree with them.

You should also note that I didn't scoff at their beliefs until they started bringing it up, and I also didn't use the judge examples on them after they did that. I used history.

Anyways, gotta get to work. If everything works out I'll be back online after 12am-1am PST though.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Who's being denied? No one is forcing people to perform religious ceremonies. In fact businesses are required to allow people to practice religious prayers when working. And two gay men getting married does not infringe on your religious freedoms at all. Not even a tiny fraction of a fraction.

As for denying gay couples business, I would have no problem getting rid of that law. I believe that business owners have a right to discriminate who they sell their property to. There's a whole thread that was made about that very subject of which I was a participant in to show that I'm speaking the truth on that. Let's get that law changed.
Click to expand...

I remember your posts on that thread about that very same subject, and yes, you made your opinion very clear. That's an opinion I share with you. I struggle with the concept of forcing people into commerce with their own property against their will.

I struggle with most laws that force people into doing anything that involves their personal property against their will, which is why I tend to view the opinion of judges with a skeptical eye. SCOTUS passed a ruling that said my land could be seized from me against my will, all in the name of "Imminent domain", because some judges don't think my property is my property. Judges make mistakes. The judge in this case didn't make a mistake IMO, but many others have, and they don't have the respect for our personal rights the way some people in this thread seem to believe.
 
vesper said:
When it comes to gay marriage, I believe it is the right of the people to decide by a vote whether they want it in their neck of the woods or not and that decision either way needs to be respected. I have a real problem with political appointed judges overturning the will of the majority of the people especially when they do not base their entire argument on constitutional law. Most recently the case in Oregon. The judge was gay himself and made his ruling based in part on his personal feelings. When the baker in Colorado was found violating accommodation laws the ruling of that judge was based on emotion in part for making the gay couple "feel bad" for not baking them a cake. This is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

:agree: I have read where savvy lawyers have specifically requested which judges they want to hear their cases, based on, partly, knowing how the judge is likely to rule - because of personal reasons. They have even delayed a hearing if an "antagonistic" judge is appointed. If I were a client, I would probably hire that lawyer, if possible. Why take a chance on losing, since it's going to cost money no matter who you hire. Human nature, I guess.
 
Kal'Stang said:
If 30+ judges all say the same when they have nothing more in common than their ruling and that they are judges...yes I will shut up about it. And I never said that I would tell them to shut up about it. But I will point out the futility of their idiocy by pointing out that 30 + judges with nothing in common other than their rulings and that they are judges disagree with them.

You should also note that I didn't scoff at their beliefs until they started bringing it up, and I also didn't use the judge examples on them after they did that. I used history.

Anyways, gotta get to work. If everything works out I'll be back online after 12am-1am PST though.
Click to expand...

I don't believe judges are infallible. And I believe the argument in support of marriage for all would resonate better if it came from people's own beliefs and not those of judges, unless you or anyone else plans to never question the rulings of any judges on anything again. Me, I would never commit to that.

I'll be asleep later (soon) so have a good night and we'll talk again soon!
 
polgara said:
:agree: I have read where savvy lawyers have specifically requested which judges they want to hear their cases, based on, partly, knowing how the judge is likely to rule - because of personal reasons. They have even delayed a hearing if an "antagonistic" judge is appointed. If I were a client, I would probably hire that lawyer, if possible. Why take a chance on losing, since it's going to cost money no matter who you hire. Human nature, I guess.
Click to expand...

Of course that's the way it rolls Polgara. In the Oregon case, folks were well aware in advance how the judge was going to rule so days prior to his ruling there was an effort to try and block it through a San Francisco panel and it was denied. It is what the left has always done when they can't get something passed at the ballot box. They cherry pick justices to rule in their favor. And it is also a cake walk for them when the elected officials of that state happen to be of the same cloth and refuse to uphold the states constitution in the process.
 
tres borrachos said:
They don't own marriage. But you & I don't own the Constitution, either. Their rights, whether you agree or not, are protected.

And the reality is, almost 1/2 of the country doesn't think as we do. It's going to take some getting there to change that, but being antagonistic isn't the way. JMO.
Click to expand...

Exactly what right of theirs have I violated?
 
vesper said:
When it comes to gay marriage, I believe it is the right of the people to decide by a vote whether they want it in their neck of the woods or not and that decision either way needs to be respected. I have a real problem with political appointed judges overturning the will of the majority of the people especially when they do not base their entire argument on constitutional law. Most recently the case in Oregon. The judge was gay himself and made his ruling based in part on his personal feelings. When the baker in Colorado was found violating accommodation laws the ruling of that judge was based on emotion in part for making the gay couple "feel bad" for not baking them a cake. This is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Here is the ruling from the Judge in the Colorado case (Masterpiece Cakes) -->> https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/initial_decision_case_no._cr_2013-0008.pdf

Please point to the section where the ruling was based (even in part) on making the gay couple "feel bad" - since you used quotes, something which is indicative of being a direct repeat of words found in the decision could you point them out? I've read the decision and there is nothing based on the emotional state of the claimant nor do the words "feel bad" (or "feel" or "bad") appear in the decision.



>>>>
 
vesper said:
1.)But people are losing their jobs if they refuse to participate in things that violate their moral conscience especially small business owners that the state has made law.
Click to expand...

IF any of this is happening they are losing thier jobs for being morons and breaking the law not thier moral conscience.
can you explain the MILLIONS of people that dont lose thier jobs because they arent morons and dont break the law?

sorry you dont care about rights and freedoms but the majority in thsis country do and its what this country is based on.
 
tres borrachos said:
You haven't violated their rights. Nor have they violated anyone else's rights.

It isn't a contest. Each side is right. Each side is protected by the Constitution.
Click to expand...

clarification please who are you talking about here
 
Last edited:
WorldWatcher said:
Here is the ruling from the Judge in the Colorado case (Masterpiece Cakes) -->> https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/initial_decision_case_no._cr_2013-0008.pdf

Please point to the section where the ruling was based (even in part) on making the gay couple "feel bad" - since you used quotes, something which is indicative of being a direct repeat of words found in the decision could you point them out? I've read the decision and there is nothing based on the emotional state of the claimant nor do the words "feel bad" (or "feel" or "bad") appear in the decision.



>>>>
Click to expand...

“Respondents have no free speech right to refuse because they were only asked to bake a cake, not make a speech,” wrote Spencer in his ruling against Phillips. “It is not the same as forcing a person to pledge allegiance to the government or to display a motto with which they disagree.” He added that “at first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses. This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are.”

It mentions "hurt".
 
WorldWatcher said:
Here is the ruling from the Judge in the Colorado case (Masterpiece Cakes) -->> https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/initial_decision_case_no._cr_2013-0008.pdf

Please point to the section where the ruling was based (even in part) on making the gay couple "feel bad" - since you used quotes, something which is indicative of being a direct repeat of words found in the decision could you point them out? I've read the decision and there is nothing based on the emotional state of the claimant nor do the words "feel bad" (or "feel" or "bad") appear in the decision.



>>>>
Click to expand...
Judge Spencer said in his written order, “At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses. This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are.”

In other words, it’s all about “feelings.” The “hurt feelings” of Craig and Mullins are more important than a privately-owned business’ freedom of choice as to whom the business would serve.
 
vesper said:
Judge Spencer said in his written order, “At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses. This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are.”

In other words, it’s all about “feelings.” The “hurt feelings” of Craig and Mullins are more important than a privately-owned business’ freedom of choice as to whom the business would serve.
Click to expand...

correct they do NOT get to violate the rights of others

basic common sense, your rights end where others begin :shrug:
just like gays could not deny me service solely because im a christian

same rights for ALL OF US, not special rights just for me lol
 
AGENT J said:
correct they do NOT get to violate the rights of others

basic common sense, your rights end where others begin :shrug:
just like gays could not deny me service solely because im a christian

same rights for ALL OF US, not special rights just for me lol
Click to expand...

And the sad part of this is you don't even realize you have violated his rights.
 
vesper said:
And the sad part of this is you don't even realize you have violated his rights.
Click to expand...
because theres ZERO facts to support that lie LMAO

if you disagree simply post the facts now that support that i violated anybody's rights, I cant wait to read this humor.
 
vesper said:
Judge Spencer said in his written order, “At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses. This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are.”

In other words, it’s all about “feelings.” The “hurt feelings” of Craig and Mullins are more important than a privately-owned business’ freedom of choice as to whom the business would serve.
Click to expand...

28896512.jpg


Oh for the love of Ted, that's what you are going with.

You inability to ignore the extensive precedence and citations of the law to support the decision while focusing on one word of dicta in an introductory paragraph should be embarrassing to you.


With that it's time to get ready for bed. You have a good evening Vesper.


>>>>
 
WorldWatcher said:
28896512.jpg


Oh for the love of Ted, that's what you are going with.

You inability to ignore the extensive precedence and citations of the law to support the decision while focusing on one word of dicta in an introductory paragraph should be embarrassing to you.


With that it's time to get ready for bed. You have a good evening Vesper.


>>>>
Click to expand...

Quit being intellectually dishonest. It wasn't just one word. The judge clearly made it about hurt feelings in part. You have a peaceful night too WorldWatcher. Peace
 
vesper said:
And the sad part of this is you don't even realize you have violated his rights.
Click to expand...

AGENT J said:
because theres ZERO facts to support that lie LMAO

if you disagree simply post the facts now that support that i violated anybody's rights, I cant wait to read this humor.
Click to expand...

Still waiting for you to factually rove your statement?
 
tres borrachos said:
You've evolved. They haven't. And they also represent, if polls are to be believed, almost 1/2 of the population of this country.

They are also entitled to believe what they do without being degraded for it.

I was born in 1962. I can assure you, through the bulk of my 50+ years on this Earth, when the word "marriage" came into my mind, I pictured a man and a woman, because that's what was the norm when I was born and for many years after that. Does it make me narrow minded that my mind defaults to Dan & Susan and not Dan & Stephen? The mention of a random group of native Americans or a couple of Roman emporers marrying someone of the same sex doesn't change the fact that the bulk of our citizens were born into a society with opposite sex people in marriage, and it will take decades if not generations to change that.

You certainly don't expect the accepted national perception of something to turn on a dime, do you?
Click to expand...

And the bulk of many who are older than you would not picture (nor like) interracial couples when it comes to being married. My own grandparents were very much against interracial dating, let alone marriage. As were my best friend's grandparents (who were raising her, she couldn't even hang out with black guys). I've met many people my own age who think that interracial dating is wrong.

It isn't an issue that it "defaults", as you put it, to opposite sex couples. It is an issue if you think that "defaulting" means that marriage can only be and has ever only been opposite sex couples (and, I'm not saying you do believe this, only that when others do, that is the issue).

The "accepted national perception" of relationships were within your own race less than 50 years ago. That didn't change to a majority acceptance level until the 1990s. I was alive and in my teens when a majority of people finally started to see interracial relationships/marriages as "acceptable".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom